The Sun. — London, England, 1836-03-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, 31AEcm 10. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat a few minutes after 5 o'clock. COURT OF PROBATE. The Earl of RIPON presented two petitions against the Ecclesiastical Bill from Chichester. The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition to the same effect from Chester, and The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from a place we did not hear, to the same effect. The Duke of CUMBERLAND presented a petition, the facts of which he was entirely unacquainted with, from W. Gaythorn Butt, who had been tried and found guilty of some offence in the Court of King's Bench, and praying for a revision of his sentence. BANKRUPTCY LAWS. The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from Chester, complaining of certain grievances under the Bank- ruptcy Laws. - DISSENTERS' GRIEVANCES. Lord HOLLAND presented a petition from the Dissenters of Houghton-lc-Shields, praying for a redress of Dissenters' grievances. PUBLIC EDUCATION IN IRELAND. The Bishop of EXETER moved fora copy of the Cons. mission under which Commissioners had been appointed to enquire into public education in Ireland.--Ordered. The Earl of RODEN presented a petition from St. Cle ment Danes, in the county of Middlesex, against Sunday trading. The Earl of WINCHILSE A moved for copies of any let ters that had passed between his Majesty's Government and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, relative to the appointment of Mr. Lee, High Sheriff of Wexford. SLAVE COMPENSATION AMENDMENT BILL. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Slave Compensation Amendment Bill. The Bill went through the Committee. Lord LYNDHURST presented petitions from Essex and other places, relating to agricultural distress ; also a petition from the debtors confined in the gaols of London and Mid dlesex, praying that the Bill introduced last Session might pass into a law; also several petitions from places In North ampton and Oxford, against the Probate clause of the Eccle siastical Courts Bill. CHURCH REFORM. Lord MELBOURNE had it in command from his Ma. jesty, to lay before their Lordships the Second Repor of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Established Church in England and Wales, with re gard to its claims, its duties, and its revenues. In perform ing that duty it gave him great pleasure to state to their Lordships, that that Report had been unanimously agreed to, that it bore the signature of all the Commissioners, and that althpugh there might have been upon such a subject some differences of opinion, there was no material difference or discrepancy among the Commissioners upon that subject. It perhaps might be necessary, considering the magnitude of this subject—its great importance, and the great interest it natu rally excited—it might not be inconvenient to point out the parti cular recommendations which the report made to their Lord ships. In doing so, he should be probably exceedingly imperfect, but he had the satisfaction of speaking in the pre sence of those who were much more intimately acquainted with the subject, and who would be able to correct any error or supply any deficiency discovered in the short sketch he was about to make to them. Their Lordships were aware this was the second Report presented to them on this subject—that the first was the Report of Commissioners who had been appointed under the late Administration, and they had divided the subject into the three branches of territory, revenue, and patronage. Ecclesiastical patronage was a most delicate subject. It was one of much intricacy, and it was distinctly reserved for fur ther consideration. The last report recommended that there should be such a new division of the dioceses of England and Wales as they thought would put an end to the inequality which at present prevailed. In some of the dioceses the duties were so extensive as to be out of human power to perform ; while in others there were not duties enough. In the former Report they had recommended that the dioceses of Bristol and Llandaff should be consolidated. They had many objections urged against that plan, and as they appeared to them to be weighty, they had altered the plan, and now recommended that Bristol and its suburbs should be added to the diocese of Bath a-id Wells, while the remainder of the diocese should be added to tae bishopric of Gloucester.—( Hear.) This arrangement would make some alteration necessary in the dis tribution of the districts of Glamorgan and Brecon. The Report also reeommended that, as soon as it could be found quite convenient, the diocese of Sodor and Man should be joined to that of Carlisle.—( Hear, bear, hear.) It further went on to say that there should be a reduction made from the revenues of the larger and more opulent Sees, for.the purpose of increasing the revenues of those which were less amply provided for.—(Hear, heay.) They did not recommend that there should be a perfect equality in all dioceses ; in his opinion a perfect equality would be con trary to the best interests of the Church—would be contrary to our form of government, and to the state of society in which we were now placed.—( Hear.) He thought there should be no income which should be open to a charge of being grossly ample ; while, on the other hand, there should be none which would not sufficiently provide for its holder. The present estimated value of the See of Canterbury was seventeen thousand pounds - ; they prop , _esed that it should now be fixed at fifteen thousand Elea:. ) The see of London was now 12,0001. ; they proposed it should he reduced to 10,0001. Durham was 17,8001. ; they proposed it should be reduced to 8, 0001. Winchester was 10,7001. ; they proposed that it should be reduced to 7,0001. Ely was 11,0001. ; they proposed it should be reduced to 5,51101 Worcester was 6,5001. ; they-pro posed it should be reduced to 5,0001. St. Asaph and Bangor had a revenue tegether of 9,0001.-3,800/. belonged to Bangor, and 5 ,2001. to St. Asapi: ; they proposed to unite the two, and sale the whole of the revenue of the larger bishopric. This would give a fund of 28,500/., which, together with the sum of 2,300/. taken fro::; ho bishopric of Ely, would leave a total of 30,800/. to be divnied among the other bishoprics, giv'ner an income to them varying from 4,090/. to 5,0001. per annum. The sums apportioned to the different Bishoprics had not yet been determined. With respect to the Bishoprics of Bath and Wells, Norwich and Salisbury, no alteration was proposed. Their Lordships would see that the greatest amount had been taken from the Bishopric of Durham ; and the reason of that was, the recommendation of the Commis sioners that the temporal and secular jurisdiction hitherto vested in the Bishopric of Durham should be here after separated from the ecclesiastical functions. When these temporal and secular functions were taken away, there would, naturally, be taken away a great portion of the expense hitherto attending that Bishopric—such for instance as the reception of the Judges, and so on. It was also intended that in future the Bishop should have nothing further to do with Durham Castle, that his only resi dence should be Bishop Auckland, and the Castle was to be appropriated to the use of the University that had lately been established in that part of the country. The same recom mendation with respect to the separation of the civil and religious duties had also been made with respect to the Archbishopric of York, and the Bishopric of Ely, when this arrangement would be carried into effect.—( Hear.) The next important subjest to which the attention of the Go vernment had been directed, by the terms of the Commission, was the state of the Collegiate and Cathedral Churches in England and Wales ; and looking to those great institu tions, it was natural for his "Alajesty's Government to advert to that which their Lordships would be well acquainted with, viz., the extremely reduced state of a great number of the benefices of the country. Such a reduced state had great effect upon the character of the Clergy, and the interest they would take in religion. The situation they ought to hold was sunk materially, and they were ex posed to temptations which they otherwise would not be. The Report of the Commissioners further stated, that in order to give increased efficiency to the establishment, it was indis pensable to improve the condition of many benefices, where the population was of a very considerable amount, and to make adequate provision for the religious instruction of an increasing population. The Report entered into details to show 'the state of such benefices, but it was unnecessary for him to repeat them. The Report went on to state that there were benefices in the Church of two kinds—some old and some new.—( Hears) Those they called " old" which existed before the time of Henry VIII . ; and those " new," which arose about the time of the Reformation, and under the reign of that monarch.—(Hear.) In the old there were minor canons, who had no duties to perform, except occasionally preaching a sermon or two upon visitations. These preferments were not resident, and it was recom mended to suppress them altogether—of course upon the determination of present interests—that the proceeds of them s hould be paid into the fund mentioned, and applied to the purposes he had already stated. It was proposed to abo lish them, with the exception of some cases in which they might be preserved merely as titles of dignity, an d as a means of rewarding distinguished merit in the Church. With respect to these churches, both old and new, it was recomme nded that hereafter f or t h e serv i ce o f Ca thedrals there sh ould be in each one dean and four canons —one of the latter to be attached to the ar c hd eaconry o f the diocese, for the p ur p ose of giving employment to those officers whose duties were most useful, most necessary , an d most extensive, and w ho had hitherto been left with very in adequate remuneration. It was recommended that the Chapters in the new churches should consist of aper and four Can ons , which was the number at present existing in the Cathedr a l o f York ; an d it w as further recommen ded that until the existing Chapters were reduced, no election should take place. It was also recommended that the residence of the Dean should be for nine months, and that of the Canons for threemonths. —(Hear, h ear .) H e w i s h e d also to call their Lordships' attention to a further recommendation, viz., that these bene fices should be limited according to the wants of the popula tion ; but this was reserve d f or f urt h er co nsideration. It was impossible at once t o l ay d own any genera l ru l e upon the subject; they must, necessarily, be guided in their considerations b y a reference to local circumstanc es . Their Lordships were aware of the course taken by the late Administration with respect to a prebendal stall of Westminster—it was annexed to the parish Church of St. Margaret—and as there was one vacant at pre sent, the same course would be taken with resp ec t t o it. It was intended to annex it to a parish in a part of the City, in which it was now placed ; and he could s t a t e t h at h e h a d received the recommendation of his Majesty to apply it in this way, and he . was sure that his M a j es t y was as anxious as any man to carry into effect a salutary and useful reformation in the Church.—( Hear, hear, hear. ) There was another circumstance of considerable importance which he wished to state. It was desirable that those benefices should be bestowed on those whose qualifications were proved by a certain period of service. —(Loud cheers.) It was therefore recommended that no person should receive THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH il l i 836, which the railways passed.—( Hear.) On these grounds he would recommend his Hon. Friend to withdraw his proposi tion ; for even upon his own showing it would be premature ; and the necessary result would be that counsel should be heard at great length, and in that manner serious impedi %tents would be thrown in the way of those Railway Bills which were actually before the House. Mr. C. ROSS made a few observations, as we understood against the proposition. Mr. V. SMITH said he and his Hon. Friend had not at tended the Committee as Members for Northampton, but as Members appointed by the House. After what had passed, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his motion. The SPEAKER thought that the best opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a point of practice. He had read over thirteen petitions that morning, which had been presented on the subject of the competing lines to Brighton —he found that all of them prayed that one of the Bills might not pass—that the other might be passed, and that the parties who petitioned might be heard by Counsel. That prayer was against the principle of the Bill, and according to the practice of the House they ought to lay on the table. It was for the House to decide whether, as they had imposed new duties upon the Committee, they would not make a special case of these Bills, and refer the petitions to them under some limitations. Mr. P. THOMSON did not think there could be any ob jection to these petitions being referred to the Committee. The SPEAKER suggested that they should be referred to the Committee, upon the understanding that no counsel should be heard by them.—( Hear, hear.) Lord G. SOMERSET hoped the Committee would look narrowly, to see whether the petitions were bona fide or not. Many were presented out of very bad motives. Col. BRUEN presented a petition from Carlow, complain ing that the Standing Orders of the House had not been com plied with on the Dublin and Kilkenny Railway Bill. Mr. LEADER presented two petitions in favour of Mr. Buckingham's claims. Mr. POULTER presented a petition from a gentleman named Merrivale against the Exeter and Bristol Railway Bill.— Referred to the Committee on the Bill. SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. Mr. HODGES presented four petitions in favour of the South Eastern Railway Bill : after which, the Hon. Member moved the second reading of the Bill. Several Members suggested the propriety of receiving peti tions for and against the Bill previous to moving the secon d reading of the Bill. Sir JOHN RAE REID presented a petition from Ashbur ton in favour of the Bill. Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition from the owners and occupiers of land in Gravesend, Rochester, and Ashford, against the Bill. Mr. BERNAL presented petitions from Chatham, praying that time might be given to consider- of the best mode of forming a Railway from London to Dover. Sir W. GEARY presented a petition from Tunbridge Wells against the Bill. Mr. CURTEIS presented petitions from Rye and Folke stone against the Bill. Mr. HODGES then moved the second reading of the Bill. Mr. BERNAL said he would not take so strong a step as to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he said he should give his decided opposition to every other stage of the Bill. Sir E. KNATCHBULL would not oppose the second reading of the Bill ; but he came to this conclusion on very different grounds from those stated by the Hon. Member for Rochester. He ( Sir E. Knatchbull) did not mean to go into Committee with a pre-determination either to oppose or support the Bill.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He would give the matter a full and fair consideration, and would act accordingly, and this, he thought, was the way in which he would most satisfactorily discharge his duty. When they were aware that twenty-eight millions of money were already em barked in railroad speculations, and that there were from fifty ' to sixty railroad plans before the House, he could not but come to the conclusion that a great proportion of these schemes must be founded on very insufficient grounds.—( Hear, hear.) He could not at present say whether this measure was one of them, but he hoped such was not the case. Mr. HODGE S, as the second reading of the Bill was not opposed, would only say, that when the Bill was placed in his hands he stipulated with the parties that he should undertake the conduct of the Bill upon principles of strict impartiality. He was no partizan, and he undertook the management of the Bill merely because it was connected with the county which be had the honour to represent. The Bill was then read a second time. MIDLAND COUNTIES' RAILWAY BILL. Mr. FRENCH and Mr. HALFORD presented petitions against this Bill, but from the extraordinary confusion in the House, we were unable to hear the names of the places from whence the petitions came. DUBLIN HARBOUR BILL. Mr. G. EVANS brought up the Report of the Committee on this Bill. LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY. Lord G. LENNOX moved that the Committee on this Bill might have power to send for persons, papers, and records, to be examined. The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member should state some reason for his motion. Lord G. LENNOX said he believed the object was to com pel certain persons to give evidence who refused to do so. Mr. C LTRTE IS did not know that this was a power which the House ought to give to a Committee on a Railway Bill. The question was then put, and agreed to. Mr. HARDY presented two petitions, but the noise in the body of the House was so great that we could not understand upon what subject. Several HON. MEMBERS presented petitions, and brought up reports on private bills, but from the cause before stated, their prayer could not be ascertained in the gallery. An LION. MEMBER having brought up a Report, Mr. HAWES asked the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade, if the Bill which authorised certain Incorpo rations was likely to obtain the support of his Majesty's Go vernment? Mr. P. THOMSON said he understood the Bill had un dergone some alterations in the Committee. He had not yet seen it, and when he ascertained its nature, he would be able to say what course Government would pursue. Mr. RICFIARDS thought a fairer case was never laid before Government for allowing parties to be incorporated under the Bill. GREAT WESTERN UNION RAILWAY. Mr. HALE presented a petition from a Gentleman in the County of Gloucester, against this Bill, and praying to be heard by Counsel against it. An HON. MEMBER presented a petition in favour of the Manchester and Stockton Railway. Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition against the Glou cester Railway. Mr. H. HUGHES presented a petition signed by 180 li• censed victuallers of Oxford against the extra 50 per cent. on spirit licenses. Mr. AG LIONBY presented a petition from South Shields to the same effect. Captain PE CHE LL presented a petition from Goring and Preston in Sussex, against an increase of duty on spirits. Mr. CHARLES WOOD brought up certain papers from the Treasury, pursuant to order. SHERIFFS (IRELAND.) Colonel PERCEVAL wished to ask the Secretary for Ireland when the returns respecting the appointment of Sheriffs, for which he had moved about three weeks ago, would be laid on the table of the House? Lord MORPETH said the Returns had not yet arrived from Ireland; when they did, they should be immediately pre sented. from considerable distances. At the conclusion of the exami nation, Mr. Warburton, who had taken a very active part throughout in the examination of witnesses and in the business of the Committee, claimed himself to be examined. He did riot blame his activity, for he (Mr. Young) had been very ac tive in the Committee himself; but he thought that, after the Hon. Member had had the opportunity of hearing all the wit nesses, it was scarcely fair ; he had therefore opposed the mo tion, and divided the Committee on the Hon. Member's claim, but without success. The report of the Committee was pre sented on the 12th of August, and the evidence was ordered to be printed, and was expected soon after. However, the ses sion closed without its appearance. He wrote to the President of the Board of Trade, stating the delay, and requesting to know the cause of it. The Right Hon. Gentleman, in reply, declared his entire ignorance of any adequate cause of delay, and said he would apply to the printer to ascertain. On the 17th of December he received a further reply from the Right Hon. President, stating that the printer had informed him there was a great deal of documents which had required a con siderable time to execute, but now the work would very shortly appear. A still further delay, however, took place, and the report of the evidence was not received till the beginning- of February last, only a few days before the meeting of Parlia ment. On looking into the evidence he was struck with a re markable discrepancy between what he there read in evi dence and what he had heard in Committee. In this stage of the proceedings he applied to the Honourable Gentle man himself, and informed him of the discovery he had made, and intimated the necessity of rectifying the report as a public document. The Hon. Member had replied " that he ( Mr. Young) might take what course he thought fit," and, therefore he felt that no way remained but the present, of bringing it before the House.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared that the variations in the printed evidence occurred in the correction, of the short-hand writer's notes, an opportunity which in the present case had been carried to very great lengths, and far beyond what was ever permitted to others. The Chairman of that Committee had particularly cautioned two witnesses, that though they might correct any verbal in accuracies that occurred in the transcript of their testimony, they should neither add to nor diminish the matter, and he conceived the rule should be strictly applied to all witnesses without exception. Wishing to give the House some idea of the extent in which the printed evidence of the handwriting differed from the written, he counted through the first 69 pages of the report of it (which consisted altogether of 121) and found they contained 5,000 words. Of these 3,338 had been struck out by the Hon. Member, and 1,662 left in.—( Hear.) The 3,338 erased words had in the course of correction been replaced by 6,940 new ones introduced by the Hon. Member. ( Hear.) Thus instead of the 5,000 words in the written copy, the public had 8,602 printed—(Hear)—composed of 1,662 ori ginal words and 6,940 introduced. The character of the altera tions was of much more importance, and did not arise from the introduction merely of additional words. Thus there was in troduced a great variety of additional matter, which, however interesting in itself, had nothing whatever to do with the evi dence given before the Committee by the Honourable Mem ber.—( Hear, hear.) In page ninety of the reported evi dence there was a question put to the Hon. Member with re ference to the state of the timber trade and its duties at the leading ports, and instead of giving the answer in the report as he really had given it according to the shorthand writer's notes, he introduces a long preface, and then goes on to state not simply what the duties were and the state of the trade, but also what they ought to be—adding a minute account of the durability, character, texture, and fibres of deals and other timber. He should not trouble the House with going through the various instances of a similar kind where the Hon. Member had given himself an extraordinary license to enlarge upon the evidence he gave before the Committee. Now, he did not complain of the bare fact of the Hon. Member having thus indulged his fancy, and displayed his eloquence ; but he did complain that all this was given to the public as evidence taken before the Committee, which it certainly was not. In answer to a very plain question as to the effect of a rise in the price of timber on the import trade in that article, the Hon. Gen tleman goes into a variety of details as to the measurement of deals, and enters into a long strain of reasoning and argument upon the subject, which would have done very well as an essay on the timber trade, but was neither suited to the pre sent Report nor to any part of the evidence which he gave before the Committee. Then, again, the Hon. Member in. dulged in a course of argument as to the effects of war upon the trade, and instanced 1813 and 1814, a point that had not been touched upon at all in his evidence before the Com mittee. To most of the members of the House perhaps these discrepancies might not appear to be matters of much import ance; but to him (Mr. Young), who had paid such close at tention to everything that bore upon the subject, they seemed to be very material alterations in the character of the evidence given before the Committee. His motion merely was for printing the evidence precisely as it was actually given before the Committee by all the witnesses, including the Hon. Mem ber, and also the evidence as given in the Report which the Hon. Member had prepared, and that both be laid before the House, in order that each member might be able to judge for himself how far the one was a fair copy of the other. There was another point of some importance which it was necessary for him to observe ; namely, that the version of the Hon. Member's evidence, as given by him in his report, there was no opportunity of cross-examining him upon, for if there had been, the character of his reasoning and argu ments might have been materially altered. The Hon. Member had the advantage of giving his own answers, and drawing his own conclusions, without any one to dispute the facts of the one, or the justice of the other. If the text of the Hon. Member had been open to comment by cross examination, he might have been refuted out of his own mouth. The llon. Member had therefore taken a very unfair advantage by this mode of promulgating his opinions. As he had said before, he had no personal motive in bringing this question forward. The Hon. Member concluded by moving, " That the evidence given by Henry Warburton, Esq., Mem ber of this House, before the Select Committee on Timber Duties, be printed verbatim from the short-hand writer's notes, with the same cv:dence fr o m the published Report of the Select Committee, placed in parallel columns opposite each question and answer." Mr. WARBURTON said that the Hon. Member ought to have religiously abstained from exciting any prejudice against another Member of the House, whom he had chosen to make an attack upon..--( Cheers.) This was the second attempt which the Hon. Member had made, according to a common phrase, to " Burke" his evidence.—( A laugh.) At an early period of the sitting of the Committee, he expressed his wil lingness to give his evidence before them, leaving to them to appoint the time at which they would call upon him to do so ; and the Chairman on that occasion proposed that he should be examined after all the other witnesses had given their evi dence. The Hon. Member, however, suggested that the wit nesses should be marshalled man against man, as if displayed on a chessboard, and that the number of witnesses on each side, and not the weight of evidence, should pr e p onderate. He ( Mr. - Warburton) said that he was not over anxious to be examined at all ; but that, having been acquainted for eighteen years with the timber trade, lie should be ready to give the Committee the advantage of any information which his experience during that period might enable him to convey. Yet the Hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, made a motion in the Committee, supported by his friends, that he (Mr. Warburton) should not be heard. The Hon. Gentleman having failed at that time to procure abortion, makes an attempt now to strangle the infant. He should come now to the evidence which he had given before the Committee. In giving that evidence he had stated facts connected with the history of the timber trade, as he had been taught them by experience • and he supposed it was because he had ventu red to deviate from a rule which the Hon. Gentlemen would pre scribe, that the Hon. Gentleman was induced by his zeal to come forward on the present occasion to break a lance with him. If the House examined the evidence which he gave, it would be found that it related to matter of history ; and it was only when he was driven into a corner by the cross-ques tions of the Hon. Member and his friends, that he felt him self compelled to show battle in his own defence, by giving explanations. The Hon. Member for Worcester, for instance (Mr. Robinson) had got a crotchet in his head upon the sub ject of the timber trade, which he never failed to introduce upon every occasion that the subject was under discussion or consideration, which was this—that the continuance of the timber trade was no proof that it was not a losing one. If, upon this point, he had been driven to give any evidence, it was attributable only to the over-zeal of those who pressed the subject upon him. His evidence before the Committee, if perused, would be found to be limited to his opinions, and from that evidence he had drawn certain conclusions explanatory of his opinions. He was questioned by the Committee upon three points ; namely, first, a comparison between the prices of timber at the present time and eighty years ago. Second, whether, when the ports were open to us, the price of timber was likely to be raised ? And, thirdly, as to the effect of freights in regulating the price. These were the points upon which he had given some details to the Com mittee. Did the Committee check him in giving these details or opinions ? Quite the reverse. He could assure the House that it took him three months and a half, occupying three hours each day, to compare and complete these returns. — (Cheers.) The Hon. Member had read him a severe lesson because, over this barren and uninteresting soil, he had scat tered a few flowers. In fact, it was after receiving the printed evidence that the Committee had requested him to make the additions now complained of. As to the charge itself implied in the Hon. Member's motion, he should only say that if the House devolved certain duties on an Hon. Member, and in ful filment of those duties that Hon. Member had occupied a great deal of time and labour, ho did not think it was for the House he thought, to turn round upon him after , an d visit on him any dela y that might have occurred in giving information to persons on the o ther side of the Atlantic, or with holdin g from them an earl y perusal of the evidence. A s to an y alteration which he had made in the wording of t he evidence, as the questions wer e put and answered befo re the Committee, he had made but vaserya fineawt,tearndofsomcoemmofonthesmens Aev.erewnheecnesshae was under ex y, amination he stated to the Committee that he could not then fill up the details he had given. He had, however, done so since, and the 7,000 new words which the Hon. Mem ber had charged him with introducing were all occupied in filling up those details. He had introduced no new points, al though the Hon. Member thought he had done so. On the whole, he thought he had reason to be obliged to the Hon. Member, for having unintentionally conferred on him a fa vour. No doubt the object of the Hon. Gentleman's motion was to discredit the evidence he had given ; but notice would be taken of it now, which never had before. He would now have twenty readers, where • he only one had be fore.—( Cheers. ) Mr. ROBINSON said that the complaint against the Hon. Member was not for filling up the tables, or f but publishing as his evidence a mass of matter which he had not even given in evidence at all, and which never was printed as such. He hoped this would not be made a party question, for it deeply involved the integrity of the House and its reports. If essays were to be introduced into the reports of the House, the public had no security as to their faithfulness. The lion. Member had given to the public, not the evidence which he gave be fore the Committee, but that which he said he gave. It was most important that the Report should be early in the hands of Members. The Committee reportedlon the 14th of August ; but, in consequence of the delay occasioned by the Member for Bridport, it was not laid before the House in sufficient time to enable Members to make themselves masters of it. Other witnesses were allowed merely to correct their inadver tencies. It was unprecedented that one member of the Com mittee should be allowed to keep in his own possession, for upwards of three months, the evidence taken before that Com mittee. He maintained that the alterations made were im portant, and that the proceedings were an infringement of the privileges of the House. Sir J. GRAHAM was not present when his Hon. Friend the Member for Bridport closed his evidence before the Com mittee. He had known his Hon. Friend for many years, and known him to be unimpeachable in character; he therefore concurred in the desire of the Committee - that the Member for Bridport should be permitted to add to the report docu ments of which he was in possession, connected with the de tails of the timber trade for many years back. He said it would be utterly impossible for him to prepare them during the Session, and applied for the permission of the Committee to add them to his evidence. His Hon. Friend had been three months occupied in preparing the documents, and this sufficiently accounted for the delay in printing the report. The important part of this question was limited to one fact. It was important that the evidence taken before committees should be authenticated. The rule was that, upon application to the Chairman, any verbal correction was permitted. The great objection in this case was, that parts of the evidence taken before it were altered, and he could not acquit his Hon. Friend for having altered seine of the questions. That certainly was, to a certain degree, an indiscretion. It would produce more caution in future.—( Hear.) Mr. P. THOMSON could confirm all that was stated by the Hon. Member for Bridport. When his Hon. Friend ap peared before the Committee as a witness, he read part of the papers be had with him relating to the timber trade, and said he had others which were not in a state of preparation. He distinctly recollected his Hon. Friend having said that he must be permitted to fill up his evidence, and that he was authorised and requested by the Committee to do so. He did not recol lect that the course proposed met with any opposition in the Committee. The Hon. Member for Worcester, he believed, observed that his Hon. Friend (Mr. Warburton) was not au thorised to correct the evidence. There was a great difference of opinion as to the printing of the report, but as additions wore to be made, having reference only to facts which were before stated, the Committee came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to call any more witnesses. What was the amount of the charge ? No impropriety or unfairness was al leged against his Hon. Friend, for he was authorised by the Committee to act as he had done, and no question was raised upon his Hon. Friend's conduct. What then was the object of the motion ? Was it to cast a slur upon his Hon. Friend or upon his evidence? If his evidence was to be disproved, there would be Isufficient opportunity for doing so when the subject of the timber duties was brought forward for discussion. There could be no use in proceeding further now upon his motion. He was charged with having permitted the alteration of evi dence. He was not aware that he had done so. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON certainly understood that his Hon. Friend (Mr. Warburton) had the permission of the Committee to alter his evidence, but not to so great an ex tent. He was greatly surprised at the length to which his Hon. Friend went. 'Mr. HUME thought the House and the country indebted to his Hon. Friend. As the object of the Committee was to elicit truth, and that his Hon. Friend was required by the Committee to communicate information, there was no reason why they should proceed further with this motion. Sir M. W. RIDLE Y said if a division took place he would divide with his Hon. Friend ; but it would be better to with draw the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was one material difference between this and other cases, which was, that the Member for Bridport acted under the directions of the Committee. As to matter of principle, there could be no doubt that his evidence ought to have come before the Committee. But as his Hon. Friend had been directed to act as he did, if animadversion was to fall' anywhere it should be on the Committee. He agreed in the observation that the Hon. Member for Bridport had great reason to thank the Hon. Member for Teignmouth for having brought forward this motion ; for it had given occasion for its being shown that the Hon. Member for Bridport had, at an unparalleled sacrifice of time and labour for the public service, spent four hours a day during three months in furnishing the information desired by the Committee. Yet, as this motion was calculated, if agreed to, to give currency to an opinion adverse to the fair fame of the Hon. Member for Bridport, he trusted the Hon. Member for Teignmouth would take advice which had been given him by Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and not press the motion to a division. Should, however, the Hon. Member persist in his motion, there was none against which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would give a more hearty vote. Mr. HARDY thought that no imputation was apparently conveyed against the Hon. Member for Bridport, because be might have been carried forward by his feeling on the question into an irregularity which at another time he would not have committed.—( Hear. ) Mr. G. F. YOUNG was sure that he had never evinced any disposition to cast undeserved censure on any Member of that House, and he did feel himself placed in a very unfair and embarrassing position; for Hon. Members opposite, and particularly the Right Hon: President of the Board of Trade, had attempted to give all the eulogy to the Hon. Member for Bridport, and to cast upon him (Mr. Young) all the blame. —( Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches.) If Hon. Gentlemen meant those cheers as a confirmation of that course of which lie complained, he should certainly vindicate his motives and his conduct by pressing the motion to a divi sion. He declared again, that, as far as his recollection served him, he had never been present at any such arrangement in the Committee with respect to the Hon. Member for Brid port's evidence as that w hich had been referred to ; and how the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland, who had left town, according to his own statement, before the Hon. Member for Bridport was examined, could have been a party to any such arrangement, he (Mr. Young) was at a loss to understand. Placed as he was in the position of an in dependent Member of that House, and having communi cated with no party, in order to gain support to his motion, he would say that, unless the Right Hon. President of the Board of Trade would withdraw some portion of the censure which he had cast upon him, he certainly should carry his mo tion to a division. Sir J. GRAHAM had never intended to impute any blame to the Hon. Member for Teignmouth in bringing forward the present motion. On the contrary, he thought it quite right that it should have been brought before the House. But as the matter complained of clearly came under the description of irregularity, and as:every object, therefore, would have been gained by thus bringing the subject under the attention of the House, he certainly had thought the Hon. Member would do better by withdrawing his motion. His object, however, in rising, had been to state, in answer to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Teignmouth, that, although he (Sir J. Graham) had not been present at the examination of the Hon. Member for Bridport, yet that he had actually been present when an understanding to that effect was come to, and when it was also said that the Hun. Member hard valuable evidence to offer to the Committee, which was to be found in books to which he could obtain access, and which could not so well be given orally as in a tabular form. On that occasion he ( Sir J. Graham) himself, if he mistook not, suggested whether tabular information could not be appended to the evidence of the Hon. Member, and that he might have an opportunity of correcting it after the close of the session. Mr. P. THOMSON had meant to cast no imputation on the Hon. Member for Teignmouth. Lord SAND ON suggested to the Hon. Member for Teign mouth whether, as the motion, if agreed to, would certainly convey an imputation against the Hon. Member for Bridport, the Hon. Member had not better withdraw it ? Mr. G. F. YOUNG—I beg to withdraw the motion. Lord SANDON was proceeding to address the House when he was assailed by cries of " Question," and his Lordship im mediately sat down. The motion was then withdrawn. ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES (REPORT). Lord J. RUSSELL rose:to move that the second Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the eccle siastical revenues and into the state of the Church be printed. He (Lord J. Russell) thought it right, in conformity with the course pursued that evening in the other House by the Noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government, to state shortly to the House what was the general subject of the report in question. It would be in the recollection of the House that this Commission originated when the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was in office as First Minister of the Crown, and that there were then united in the Commission, with several Archbishops and Bishops, three or four persons holding high official situations in the Go vernment. It would also be remembered that when the Right Hon. Baronet went out of office, the greater part of those Gentlemen who had held office with him withdrew from the Commission, and that, with the consent •f the greater number of Bishops comprised in the first commission, a new commission was issued, including the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, and other persons. Although, however, the persons forming the commission had been changed the objects of the commission had not ; and he thought that he was fairly entitled to say that the discussions which had arisen since the addition of the new members to the commission had been carried on in a most amicable and friendly spirit between the members of the board. They had undertaken on their parts to propose a particular measure for the benefit of the Church and the advantage of the country, and they had been enabled to come to an unanimous opinion in reporting upon the remaining objects of the inquiry. The objects of the in quiry had originally been three :—First, a better division and regulation of the episcopal revenues and duties ; secondly, a disposition of the revenues of cathedrals and collegiate chap ters, in order to render them more conducive to the relief and benefit of the Established Church; and lastly, to inquire into the residence of the Clergy on their benefices, with reference to a due performance of their duties. Now, as regarded the first branch of the inquiry, the first Report had proposed in the first place a different territorial distribution of the dio ceses, in order to make them more equal, then a sup pression of two Sees, and the erection of two others. Thus far as regarded the duties. As regarded th e revenues, the Report proposed that the greater of them should be brought within a scale not exceeding 5,5001., and not less than 4,500/. ; and that none but the two Archbishoprics of Can terbury and York, and the Bishoprics of London, Durham, and Winchester, should be made exceptions to the rule. The only material alteration in this plan proposed to be made by the present Report was, that as regarded the territorial distri bution of the sees, that portion of the diocese of Bristol which the appointment of Dean, Archdeacon, or Canon, until he had been six years in Priest's orders.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the other minor canonships, &c., it was recommended that they should be abolished ; and it was also recommended that all sinecure livings should be suppressed, and that the revenues arising out of them should be, appropriated in other parishes to the cure of souls! The next great subject in the Bill was what had often been be fore their Lordships, and upon which it would be perfectly un necessary upon that occasion for him to trouble their Lordships with any general reasonings—he meant the subject of non-re sidence and pluralities. The same evils which had met them before met them on this occasion—the great poverty and penury of many of the benefices prevented the Com mittee (as they said) doing that which they would otherwise be inclined to do—namely, to recommend the immediate dis continuance of all pluralities ; but they were of opinion that means should be taken to diminish them as much as possible, and for that purpose they recommended the prin ciple, that holding benefices and pluralities should in future be regulated with respect to distance and value. They were of opinion that no benefices should be held together that were at the distance of more than ten miles asunder ; and with respect to value, that no benefice of a greater value than 5001. should be held in plurality with any other benefice, except in cases when the small valise of a neighbouring benefice might make it expedient that they should be united. That was what the Commissioners had stated. With respect to non-residence, he ( Lord M.) did not mean to depart from the principle of the law as it at present stood, but they did propose to make further provisions for enforcing residences by diminishing the number of pluralities and non-residents. The Bill had been prepared by the Commissioners for carry ing into effect this purpose, and it would speedily be sub mitted to their' Lordships' consideration. He had now stated the principal recommendations contained in the Report, and he begged leave to declare his entire concurrence in the whole of them. They were at once temperate and efficacious, at once reforming and Conservative, calculated to preserve the character and efficiency of the Church, while at the same time they would remove any stumbling-blocks which might in any manner have rendered it the object of attack, and, therefore, he re commended it to their Lordships as being calculated to in crease the efficiency of those holy purposes for which it had been established.—(Loud and continued cheering.) The Archbishop of CANTERBURY expressed his great satisfaction at the subject having been introduced by his Majesty's Government, because it was really impossible that such a measure could be carried through the House without the full approbation and effective and hearty support of the Government.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He believed that this measure would be very beneficial to the Church. He had long been aware that some strong and vigorous measures for the correction of abuses that had crept into the Church, and for the removal of those anomalies that had long interfered with its efficacy, were necessary. When Sir Robert Peel retired from office, the proceed ings of the Commission were for a while suspended, but as soon as the Noble Viscount had taken office, he had called upon him (the Archbishop of Canterbury), and expressed his readiness to continue the Commission, with only such changes in the official members of that Com mission, as the change in the Administration rendered neces sary. The Noble Viscount stated that it was his desire that the Commission should proceed on the - same views and principles as those on which it had been originally formed, and on which they had proceeded, and had been favoured with the constant attendance of the Ministers of the time. That Com mission had continued to receive the same assistance from his present Majesty's Ministers since the time the Commission had been received—the Noble Viscount and the members of the Government having been frequently present, and lent every as sistance ; and he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) was happy to be able to confirm the statement of the Noble Viscount as to the unanimity which prevailed ; and whenever any material difference took place, it had been settled, not by any unwilling compromise or unjust concession, but from a fair consideration of the facts of the case, and the special reasons upon which the matter turned. That was really the state of the case, and he believed there never was a Commission, appointed for so important a purpose, on which so much unanimity prevailed. lie should freely confess, in justice to himself, that had he not believed this Commission to be founded on Conser vative principles, he should never be a member of it.—( Heir, hear.) When lie said Conservative principles, he meant that the Ecclesiastical Establishment should be maintained in all its integrity. He believed that a smaller number of bishoprics than at present existed would not be suffi cient to discharge the Episcopal functions. There were other reasons which induced him to undertake the duties of that Commission, particularly when he heard several persons, for whom lie entertained a high respect, express an opinion op posed to the holding of commendams by the Bishops of smaller Sees. He saw that there existed no other means than those proposed by the Report for increasing the revenues of the smaller bishoprics, for, he feared, they could not ob tain any from the public.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") An appeal to them was out of the question, and there only remained the plan of taking from the larger Sees some portion of those revenues which in latter times had greatly increased, and thus aiding to the smaller ones. Another matter was the main tenance of the Cathedral establishments, the Deans. Chapters, &c. With respect to the upholding of Deans and Chapters, he was of opinion that they ought to be continued.—( Hear, hear.) The appointments were very useful to the Church, as rewards to clergymen of distinguished merit. He was still of opinion that they might be preserved, and yet a large surplus obtained for the uses of parishes where, from the immense population contained in some of those in the Metropolis, and northern and midland counties, the Church of En glend was almost as a shadow. He felt quite certain that no one could Say that the surplus could have been applied to a better object than in filling up the (Treat want felt in such parishes. Where the produce of the tithe was taken from the officiating Minister, and was given to another who perhaps might not he improperly called a drone, f,r he might be of eiating somewhere else, it seemed to him, that it carried its condemnation in its very name. One word as to the equalization of bishoprics--that question had never been under the consideration of the commisssiJners ; it was one of those wild projects which would at once have been scouted by them. Upon the subject of residence he appre hended there would be very little difference of opinion.— ( Hear.) The very principle of the Church ought to be, that a clergymam should certainly reside upon his benefice. It would, however, be totally impossible to carry the principle into effect in the present state of the Church ; but they ought to come as near to the principle of having a clergyman residing wherever there was a congregation of the Church of England ' , The general feeling against pluralities was so great that he thought some restrictions were necessary ; and in a Bill which lie introduced last year, he had introduced a clause to do away with them in some degree. He wished to say a few words upon the objects which the Commissioners had in view when they made their Report. Their only object was to advance the pure religion of the country through the Estab lished Church. He disclaimed any other motive than the good cef the Church—they had looked to no temporary expediency, to fix wavering friends. His full persuasion was, that if the recommendation of the Commissioners were carried into ef fect, it would be greatly beneficial to the Church itself. By applying revenues that had hitherto been given to literary institutions to parochial revenues, the greatest good would be effected.—( Heat, bear, hear.) lie be lieved it would be found that the clergy of the Church of England were not inferior to any other class of men in any other country in piety and learning. He hoped some provision would be made for the education of those who were preparing themselves for the sacred duty of the Ministry. There was another point which had been the occasion of great scandal to religion—that was the unworthy conduct of some Members of the establishment. Hitherto, these powers vested in the Church to punish those who transgressed its rules was very insufficient, and he trusted some arrangement would be made, although the Report did not allude to them, to prevent these scandals. To those who might appear dissatisfied with these arrangements and reductions, he would only say, let them look at the state of the Church, and see if its interests would not be promoted, and much public good effected by the re commendations of this Commission.—( Hear, hear.) The Report was then ordered to be printed. SPANISH AFFAIRS. _ _ The Marquis of LONDONDERRY asked if any an swer was obtained to the letter addressed to the Spanish Go vernment, respecting the twenty-seven prisoners taken by them. Lord MELBOURNE said of course if there was any an swer, it would be laid before the House. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he would bring the subject before the House on Monday. After the presentation of some petitions, the HOll3O ad. journed to Friday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, 111,11:cm 10. The SPEAKER took the Chair this evening at four o'clock. MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. Mr. VERNON SMITH, in pursuance of his notice, moved that the Members for Northamptonshire, and for the borough of Stamford, be added to the Committee on the Midland Railway Bill. He thought it necessary to have upon the Committee gentlemen who were locally interested, and had a local knowledge of the country through which the Railroad passed. Mr. E. DENNISON opposed the motion. Sir G. STRICKL AND thought any motion to increase the numbers of the Committee extremely objectionable, and he should, therefore, feel it his duty to oppose it. If the prin ciple were once admitted, they should have frequent motions of a similar character. Mr. CARTWRIGHT supported the motion. Mr. FINCH was of opinion that investigation should take place, and if on inquiry it should be found to benefit the people of England, why let all private interests give way. Mr. BARCLAY thought the proposit►on decidedly objec tionable ; and that the House should adhere to the rule laid down at the commencement of its sittings for the constitution of these private Committees. If the course now proposed were adopted, it would render these Committees nothing but parti zan Committees. Mr. P. THOMPSON had on a former occasion called the attention of the House at considerable length to the reso lutions and recommendations of the Committee, of which he had the honour to be chairman. They had been most anxious to effect whatever improvements were possible in that respect, but they found themselves compelled in consequence of the difficulties that would occur to recommend that the list Com mittees, as settled at present, should be the list Committees to which these railway Bills should be referred. It appeared to him that if the proposition of his Hon. Friend were acceded to, it would open the door to the admission of further innovations, —( Hear, )—and the House would be called on to act upon other special circumstances,and attend to the claims of every other party opposing a Railway Bill. It was for the House to say whe ther it would adhere to the recommendation of that Commit tee to confine these List Committees to the members who belonged to them, and the members of the counties through CATHOLIC NUNNERIES. Colonel PE RC E VAL had a question to ask the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, when the re turns which had been ordered during the last Session and on the first day of the present, and which were required by the Act of 1829, relating to the establishment of Catholic Nun neries in Ireland, and of other institutions of that nature, would be presented. Lord J. RUSSELL said the Reports were not yet made up, but they should be presented with as little delay as pos sible. Colonel PE RCEVAL hoped there would be no delay, as a motion on the subject only stood over for these returns. POST OFFICE. Colonel PERCE VA L seeing the Right Hon. the Member for Taunton in his place, wished to obtain on behalf of a friend of his, who was unable to come down to the House, some in formation respecting the time when the Report of the Post- Office Commissioners would be laid on the table. Mr. L ABOUCHERE said it was necessary before these returns could be made up to obtain information from the Se cretary of the Post-office, who was at present in France. As soon as he returned the papers would, without delay, be laid on the table. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. G. F. YOUNG rose under feelings of great pain to bring forward the present question ; but in doing so he was:not influenced by any party or personal motives. The Hon. Member proceeded to detail circumstances connected with the appoint ment of the Committee, when he was called to order by Mr. E WART, who protested against the course which the Honourable Member (Mr. G. F. Young) was pursuing. He should conform himself to the evidence, and not make any animadversions on the composition of the Committee. Mr. YOUNG went on to complain that the evidence given by Mr. Warburton before the Select Committee on the timber duties .vas not the same in the printed Report as that delivered by the Hon. Member ; that the evidence had been corrected by the Hon. Member himself, and out of 5,000 words which appeared in the short-hand writer's notes, 3,338 were struck out, leaving 1,662 of the original, and 6,940 addi tional words were added that were never delivered by him before the Committee. The Hon. Member then commented on the altered evidence. He had examined the records of the House, and he was not able to find a parallel case. An Hos. MEMBER said that the Hon. Member for Tyne mouth was taking a course which could not be permitted. He was attacking the Committee, and disclosing their individual opinions. The SPEAKER was understood to say that the Hon. Gentleman was not out of order in reverting to the opinions and proceedings of the Committee, with the view of tracing the breach of privilege to its source, and ought not to be interrupted as long as he confined himself to that view of the case. Mr. YOUNG thanked the Speaker, and would take no notice •f future interruptions. Leaving aside the composition of the committee and turning to the evidence, he wished he could have seen fairness prevailing there either; but the fact was, that although eighteen witnesses had been examined on the side of the reduction, only twelve were permitted to be brought forward on the other, although some of the unexa mined individuals had come at great inconvenience and expense _----..------"'a" it had been proposed to make part of the see of Llandaff should now be united, as far as regarded the city of Bristol, with the diocese of Bath and Wells, and as far as regarded the other por tions of it, th a t it should be united to the see of Gloucester. Also, as regarded the see of the Isle of Man, it was proposed to unite it to that of Carlisle. Then, with respect to the revenues of the several bishoprics, the present Report proed .: posed certain diminutions. Taking the ret urns as present to the Commissioners—which, however , m i g ht not be qui is te accurate, but they were the only ones of winch the Comm" sioners had been able to avail themselves—it would appear :hat the present Report proposed these changes Sees. Present income. Reduced to . Sur lus. p Canterbury £17,000 Durham London Winchester Ely Worcester To be united. 5,200 t 3,800 St. Asaph Bangor 3,8 00 :5,200 Leaving a total surplus of £.28,5 00 Now it was proposed that this excess should be divided arro n g thirteen other sees, so as to augment their revenues to betweel, 3,0001. and 4,0 0 0 1 . per annum. With respect to the sees 0 Bath and Wells, Norwich, and Salisbury, no alteration Was now proposed. The effect of the new distribution wo uld he,. in conformity with the suggestions in the first report, tha,s there would no longer be the great disproport ion, so mu ca complained of, between the amount of the reven ues enjoyedre bY the respective Bishops and the duties perfo rmed b y with the additional benefit that the evils of uniting bene fices in commendam to the bishoprics, and of translation f rom the poorer sees to the richer, would be got rid of. With res p ect to the whole cost of the different sees , the repo rt presented tit° fact that the full amount of the p r esent revenues of the bi sho p -, rics would suffice for the revenues of the whole number o, bishoprics now proposed, and further, that there might be some measures in order to change the mode of granting leases for lives and terms of years ; but that was a subject which the Commissioners had found to be attunded with much difficulty, and they had not made ally distinct proposition uP ° 3 it. With regard to the next branch of the inqu ir y entered into by the Commissioners—the amount and present distribu tion of the revenues of cathedral and collegiate chapters- - t he report entered into some statements. The chapters were et present divided into two orders—those of the old foundation and those of the new foundation. Those of the old foundation were those which were founded before the reign of Kill Henry VIII., and they had this peculiarity , that they ba t not only separate estates affixed to each preben d, but fI:T. there were also in each a number—in some a larger, Is others a smaller—of prebendaries and person s attached tl the cathedral, but with no augmentation of residence , and with smaller or larger incomes, and no duties to perfort n • " Those of the new foundation were somewhat more sY,": tematic. They generally had an estate belonging to the Dean and Chapter giving a yearly income, the surplus which, after deducting expenses for repairs of cathedrals , wa s divided generally into two portions, one portion for the de an and the other for the other members of the chapter. The tna °- ner in which the Commissioners proposed to deal with these establishments, was, in the first place, that all those prebend daries to which the condition of residence did not attach, all other similar offices, should be altogether suppressed, their incomes being merged into some fund for the benefit Of t he Clergy, and for the extension of the instruction afforded bY the Church. And, with respect to the collegiate chapters is general, it was proposed by the Commissioners not to ab et lish them altogether ; but to leave in each cathedral a sufficient number of dignitaries duly to perform the services of the ea' thedral, adding something to the incomes of the more distin guished. It was, in fact, proposed that there should be dean and four canons to each cathedral, and that all above that number should be suspended. The consequence of these proposed measures would be that, as regarded the chapters on the old foundation, there would be 368 prebendaries abolished, and that as regarded those on the new foundation, besides or abling them to provide for the better service of the cathedra', there would remain a surplus from the different operationsieit' 13,0001. per annum, including 70 sinecure recto ries, 30 of whho belonged to the prerogative of the Crown. With respect the canonries remaining, it was considered that on e of the': might, in most cases, be made useful in maintaining an °Mc* of great importance—one which was particu larl y conducive.t! the performance and due inspection of the affairs of Church, but which was at present very ill remunerate a —he referred to the office of archdeacon. It was PT O ' p o sed (he spoke generally, without adverting t o particular cases) that one of the stalls should be attached to the office e °t the archdeacon. This had already been do ne in the eas l Westminster, where one of the stalls was affix ed to the du st the incumbent of a populous parish in the neighbourhood, t the House ; and there was also another of th e stalls in ',Vele minster Abbey which it was now proposed to attach to tl!ott.. parish of St. John's, Westminster. These were 's cular instances. As regarded oth ers, it had also bee t' thought advisable to propose that they should be affise to the cures of large and populous parishes. He now ar e to the last and most important branch of the inquiry---t provision for due residence on the part of the parochial clergy' With respect to this, it was now proposed that the num ber of clergymen to be exempted from continual residence should sould hebeconficrheadpUleaeinds—itmilmateditahteesl3o exemptions veryried to m u t e h i e l on the Bishops, and on the Royal Family, the:Heads of versities, and the principal masters of Westminster and r- , t° ° schools, besides some others, which he need not now name ; With respect to the time of residence, it was not proposed that any very material alteration should be made, except t t l a t deans should be obliged to reside nine months, and t- h.. a canon holding a benefice should not be allowed to be a e sent from it more than four m )nths, including t h e thre e, in attenuanc? months during which he would be in attendance at the catt le dral. Then, with respect to pluralities, sonic considerau changes were proposed to be introduced into the law re ' 7 o o lating these. In fact, it was proposed that no Pe' s , should hold more than one living, together wit h a citlrs: nity, and that no one should hold two livings the tance between which was greater than ten miles, or rule' lt one should yield more than 500/. per annum. This rule, e was proposed, should be absolute as regarded the distance 0; ten miles ; but, with respect to the annual income of 500/ , 1 0 was proposed to extend it to meet this case—where a clergy holding rather a rich benefice would be found willing t°l,l',be another contiguous to it, the population of which rnig"", it very considerable in proportion to its income, in which e as- n i t l was further proposed that the Bishop of the diocese sh o- e , have power to grant a provisional license, of which an il n , rn- 0 diate report should be made to the Archbishop, by bo the case would be laid before the King in Council, w ro ., would have the alternative of disapproving of the posed license. Having now stated the proposals of it Commissioners for the better arrangement and distributwte of the duties of the various Livings, it became necessarYias say in what way it was proposed to dispose of the sali c h funds which the new provisions would create, and w`",; t e would come into the hands of the Commissioners, or, The probably, of some Board appointed for the purpose. as object would be to dispose of this amount in such a mannatvi, to make it beneficial to the Church. Now, it would hef.,4 dent to the House that, when such restrictions in the hol u e l- c i, of a plurality of livings were imposed, it would be e xec- of ingly difficult for clergymen, not holding more than on de, the smaller livings, to live in that sort of comfort that was the sirable for a minister of the Church. It appeared thatfiee relative values of the livings were as follows :—Of b e co der under 1501. per annum there were 3,500: of those "lim 1001. there were 1,926; that of those under 1501. per aell oO, the population of 13 were above 10,000, of 51 above u ' be , of 251 above 2,000, and that in 1,125 the population wa v ing tween 500 and 2,000 persons ; making 1,440 benefices b' more than 500 inhabitants, with less than 150/. per keiell Without troubling the House with the calculatio ns w o uld him to the result, he (Lord John Russell) °too state that if the stipends of the smaller livings were rat the 100/. per annum, and if the stipends of those of wil i° ," s o/4 population was more than 500 were raised from 100/. to . ri ge' more than 160,0001. would be required to effect the arra t ment ; but at the same time it must be borne in mind tba efo se sum to be derived from the suppressions which he bad before t he stated to the House, as forming part of the propositions 00461 Commissioners, would afford ample scope for its being e a t ap into effect.--( Hear,) On the other hand, there we re r ,jobt other evident means of applying any surplus which,:ijcil afterwards remain, because, if the disproportion 0 f *:„ the accommodation to the numbers of the population in be several parishes were taken into account, there w°°,.,eisell found to be an ample field for an advantageous e 4 four ture of the amount. Taking London alone, there we re , ssa° parishes, containing 166,000 inhabitants in which theroere church room for only 8,200, less than one-twentieth. a ac en were thirty-four parishes, containing one million anmods thousand inhabitants, in which there was church aconite the tion for only 125,000, about one-tenth of the whole. t here remaining parishes there was a population of 816,0 00 ; t one' being church accommodation for 97 ,7 00 only , o r abet', lit th° eighth. There were also various other instances statedcb in, report, showing that, while the population had very n i x e d to creased, the churches and church-room had no t carn eincre proportion. He trusted that when the commissioners had consider this part of the subject, respecting which th n eY art ie ; not as yet made their report, a measure satisfactory to a., P a en would be suggested for the appropriation of this surP'4o' 614 that it would be transferred into the hands of those wl'. o e rel i t object would be to distribute it in such a way as to g y ,, l e be i of instruction to those places which were in absola.%. of it. In many districts the Dissenters, to their hon°: f the spoken, had afforded accommodation to the mem o o ther s l °l Established Church in their chapels, but there were st t which the want of the means of religious worship was Oa ; very great. It was undoubtedly much to be regretatrijoieno such a want should exist, but he thought t hat t ei be e would be unanimous in agreeing to this rq?_rrol, it was known that the highest dignitaries of the 6,'c ; a d Bishops, and other elevated members of the Churc_ cro: pressed their willingness—when it was known that the Cro w was ready to place at the disposal of Parliament a gr the na.. tion of the patronage and revenues which belonge d t° • - d a d (Hear.) When these two parties—the Crown -ch t hey i nitaries of the Church—gave up privileges o' l %it ," o r h y enjoyed from time immemorial, and to which they, 'I w ay, ~"0 1 r ritual claim—when they acted in this praisewortrneYenees 0 surrendering up not only their patronage but their would the public good, he was satisfied that Parliament: "could i r S he unanimous in thinking that no better application made of the funds thus obtained than renderingluvfor means of providing additional religious instruction ih into .- -e se) people.—( Hear.) He should not enter further ~ before t°',. c on ' tails of the Report ; but when, it was ity Lb° Hon. Gentlemen would have an ample opportun • iterations wa hic h y" dering those details, and the several a d i v o He need bar eon' and tne Commissioners proposed to make. " i n/. that the members of the commission were mantra) 4 I